Ethnic minorities experience lower job quality

We know from existing research that there are inequalities in the job market: some minority groups in the UK earn less than their White counterparts, and are twice as likely to be on a zero-hours contract, and to have to work at short notice. They’re also more likely to be in casual work, or self-employed – and the latter is more likely because of barriers to employment, rather than because they want to be self-employed. We also know that pay gaps are bigger for foreign-born ethnic minority workers than for their UK-born counterparts.

At the same time, though, we’re also increasingly aware that job quality is about more than pay, security and fair treatment. However, there hasn’t previously been much research on ethnic differences in job conditions.

My research with Senhu Wang and Maria Koumenta set out to examine discrepancies in job quality – in particular, job control: being able to decide what tasks to do and how to carry them out. This is the first large-scale analysis of ethnicity and job control there has been in this country.

It’s important to break this down in detail, because people from Chinese and Indian backgrounds in the UK are more likely than the White majority to be in professional and managerial jobs, which typically involve higher levels of autonomy. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African or Caribbean people are more likely to be in routine and manual jobs. We wanted to use Understanding Society and the Skills and Employment Survey (SES) to examine this and ask to what extent these differences could be explained by factors such as type of job and sector.

Using the data

The two datasets offer different, but similar questions on job control. Understanding Society – with data covering 2010-22 – asks people how much influence they have in their current job over tasks, what order they do them in, how they work, and at what pace. SES (covering 1992-2017) asks how much influence people have on how hard they work, their tasks, how they work, and the standards they work to.

Results

The SES data showed a decline in overall job control across the years we studied, but it was lower throughout for people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Using Understanding Society, we saw, again, that job control was lower for workers from ethnic minorities, on average, than for White workers. However, in the three most recent waves, there were some signs of convergence – i.e. the inequalities appear to be reducing a little.

The gap between job control for minority and White workers was similar to the differences research has also shown for job control between:

• young and ‘prime age’ workers
• men and women
• workers in larger and smaller workplaces
• graduates and non-graduates.

It was also about a third of the size of the gap between professional/managerial roles and routine/manual jobs.

Detailed analysis

When we looked deeper, digging down into specific ethnic categories, we found a general pattern of lower average job control for non-White workers:

• Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean, Black African and ‘miscellaneous ethnicity’ workers all have lower average job control.
• Workers defined as ‘White other’, mixed ethnicity, and Chinese have the same average level of job control as White British employees.

We also found that Bangladeshi workers are over-represented in routine and manual work, and Black African and Caribbean people are over-represented in healthcare and the public sector. These factors play a part in the differences in job control, but don’t account for all of the gap.

Also, while there is a general trend towards greater equality, there are still differences, and these are bigger for foreign-born ethnic minority workers than for UK-born minority workers. Interestingly, though, ethnic minority women’s disadvantages in job control are smaller than for ethnic minority men (and are more likely to be explained by sociodemographic characteristics).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that workers from ethnic minority backgrounds get less say in what they do and how they do it than White workers – and this was true:

• using different measures across two data sets
• when looking in detail at categories of ethnicity
• when taking other factors into account.

When we adjusted for these other factors, we also saw that, although Indian and Chinese minorities are more likely to hold managerial and professional positions and have higher qualifications than White British employees – and even though people from Indian backgrounds tend to out-earn their White counterparts – they have less job control. In other words, they are still suffering ethnicity penalties in the workplace.

Most of these differences can’t be accounted for by demographics or characteristics of the job or workplace, which suggests that either some ethnic minorities choose jobs with less control, or they are being treated differently by managers and/or employers.

The big difference is that foreign-born workers are most affected. First-generation immigrants often face extra challenges such as language skills, smaller social networks, and having overseas qualifications – while those from the second generation tend to have better language skills, and more compatible qualifications, and are more culturally assimilated.

Policy implications

These specific challenges for first-generation immigrant workers can be addressed by policy. Language classes, and recognising foreign qualifications, could help – as could providing help with building social networks and promoting cultural assimilation. A lot of attention in this field is paid to hiring, but it could cover what happens after hiring, too, and whether – and to what extent – people are treated differently in work.

But also: a broader view of the situation could help in addressing labour market inequalities. Perhaps organisations with established equality, diversity and inclusion functions could study and report on job quality, as well as pay and progression.

Read the original research

Authors